AddThis SmartLayers

Regional daily rapped for publishing alleged fraudster’s phone number

IPSO_logo_newA regional daily which published an alleged fraudster’s phone number in a picture caption has been rapped by the press watchdog.

The Argus, Brighton, published Ben Hyland-Ward’s number by mistake online but denied it had breached his privacy in doing so.

Mr Hyland-Ward currently faces nine counts of fraud by false representation after being charged in connection with selling fake tickets to last year’s Bestival music festival, and will appear before magistrates in Brighton this Thursday.

He had complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Argus breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Privacy) when the newspaper reported on his arrest in September.

An online story reported that Mr Hyland-Ward had been “arrested after taking thousands of pounds from his friends in payment for festival tickets which he failed to provide” and that it was understood he had been questioned by police “on suspicion of fraud by false representation”.

The story included a photograph of the complainant, with a caption which appeared to have been published in error.

Its wording was that of an internal note which included the complainant’s phone number, and a brief sentence stating that he had “scammed hundreds of people out of money for fake tickets to Bestival”.

Mr Hyland-Ward was concerned that the publication of his phone number intruded into his privacy, in breach of Clause 3. He was particularly concerned given the nature of the article’s subject matter, and because he normally took great care over who he gave his phone number to.

Under Clause 1, the complainant said the publication of his phone number was irrelevant to the story, and that the wording of the caption explaining the allegations against him inaccurately suggested that he was guilty of having “scammed” customers, when in fact the matter was still under police investigation.

The Argus removed the caption from its website but did not accept the publication of Mr Hyland Ward’s phone number intruded into his privacy.

It confirmed the caption was published by mistake, and was removed after only a few hours online. The newspaper said it understood that the complainant normally carried out his business over the phone, and that a source had informed it that “hundreds” of his customers would have had his phone number.

IPSO accepted that the caption had been published in error. This did not, however, excuse the newspaper from its obligations under the Code. The Committee started from the point of view that an individual’s personal mobile telephone number generally constitutes private information.

In this instance, IPSO found there was no evidence (beyond an assertion that the telephone number was known by “hundreds” of people) that the complainant had publicly disclosed the information, and nor was it known to be established in the public domain, for example through its appearance in an advertisement or other commercial activity.

While IPSO noted “with concern” that the statement in the caption claimed Mr Hyland-Ward had “scammed” customers, the Committee took the view that the article overall did not misleadingly suggest that he was guilty of fraud.

The complaint was upheld under Clause 3, and the full adjudication can be read here.

6 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • March 22, 2016 at 8:54 am
    Permalink

    TBFTGOGGI

    dangers of not have enough checks before controversial stories go on web.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • March 22, 2016 at 10:09 am
    Permalink

    Interestingly, the full adjudication says the Argus should publish an account of the ruling on the front page of its website.

    I visit the site most days, but can’t recall having seen this on its front page? The url suggests it might not have ever appeared in the main news feed either . . . sneaky Argus!

    http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/ruling/14360248.IPSO_complaint_upheld__Festival_ticket_fraud_investigation/

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • March 22, 2016 at 10:57 am
    Permalink

    ltr: the mayor, his mistress, cant remember the noncey fat bloke’s name, the chief of police Supt Uphimself LOL, gorgeous bit of stuff and the charidee toff – note to subs – will get names later.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(8)
  • March 22, 2016 at 11:11 am
    Permalink

    If it hasn’t met IPSO demands (see landlubber comment), it’s short term-ist self-destructive swagger. For the good of the industry, IPSO has to be seen to work. Perhaps deep down the Argus would prefer Hacked Off dictating how it responds?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • March 22, 2016 at 11:43 am
    Permalink

    I go on the Argus website daily and saw the full adjudication on the home page.

    It was running on the site for the whole of Saturday.

    Hardly the crime of the century and I can’t believe that IPSO ruled in favour of an alleged fraudster.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)